[ANNOUNCE] BitcoinStats.org - Graph of recent transaction confirmation times.

[Atheros]

The common question "How long will it take for my transaction to be confirmed?" has no easy answer. 10 to 60 minutes is often said, but transactions can be confirmed in a block in less than 10 minutes and sometimes take longer than 60 minutes, which causes consternation.

I have created a website that shows how long recent transactions have taken to be confirmed in a block.

BitcoinStats.org

Seeing this Transaction Timer chart, users can get an idea of how long transactions tend to take to be confirmed in a block by seeing the distribution of past transactions. In the future, I can show the fee amount paid which will be quite relevant as miners become more picky about which transactions they choose to include in blocks.

The site will always be free; I made it for the benefit of the Bitcoin community, especially new users.

I welcome comments and suggestions.. especially concerning the "Count" statistic on the third tab. (I think that it is possible to manipulate this statistic and I'm curious if people think that malicious people do. The info is gleaned by counting the number of unique IPs in addr messages.)

[1713500878]

1713500878

[1713500878]

1713500878

[1713500878]

1713500878

[1713500878]

1713500878

[1713500878]

1713500878

[Littleshop]

That is really nice!

So is the number of clients really dropping that fast?  Can you make a longer timescale? 

[Atheros]

That is really nice!

So is the number of clients really dropping that fast?  Can you make a longer timescale? 

Thank You! 

I don't have historical data. I'm sorry. It will go from this point forward. The number of online clients appears to be dropping. That is unless someone can suggest a reason to not trust Bitcoin Protocol addr messages.

[Steve]

Very nice!  What accounts for the difference in the number of unique clients and the total of the clients by version?

[o]

Nice statistics. Note that the number of BTC in transaction is less significant because people can send back and fro in short time. Instead it is better to show the graph of number of transaction vs time interval which will directly give information of the transaction waiting time distribution, which is expected to be Poison.

For the count page, the number of client is larger than expectation because its number should be of the same order of magnitude of miner, as they are always connect the the network, which should only be few ten thousand only. You may take a look of http://bitcoinstatus.rowit.co.uk/ which shows that there is around 50k. Counting unique IP is not a good method because it is easier to change it occutionally.

[annelions]

Why does the graph on the transaction timer page start at -8.3? Shouldn't it start at 0? Or is it so you can better see those transactions which took less than a minute?

[vanDeGraph]

Very nice service and good looking website! Can you make it so that we can look at transactions from longer periods than 4 hours? Maybe 24? Very nice all around though

[Atheros]

Very nice!  What accounts for the difference in the number of unique clients and the total of the clients by version?

One can only find out what version another node is running by connecting to them. The vast majority of hosts are behind a firewall and I cannot connect to them. I have to wait for them to connect to me. A couple additional hosts are already maintaining too many connections- like ~125- and aren't accepting more.

Nice statistics. Note that the number of BTC in transaction is less significant because people can send back and fro in short time. Instead it is better to show the graph of number of transaction vs time interval which will directly give information of the transaction waiting time distribution, which is expected to be Poison.

Such a chart would be more difficult for new users to grasp. Also it would never change and that would be a bit boring. I did consider it though. Similarly, it could be a line graph showing the percentage of transactions that were confirmed by that time. For example- at 1 minute, the line might be around 10%. At 10 minutes, the line would be around 50%. And at 60 minutes, the line would be around 90%. It would get to 99.9% somewhere around 300 minutes (just a guess).

For the count page, the number of client is larger than expectation because its number should be of the same order of magnitude of miner, as they are always connect the the network, which should only be few ten thousand only. You may take a look of http://bitcoinstatus.rowit.co.uk/ which shows that there is around 50k. Counting unique IP is not a good method because it is easier to change it occutionally.

I don't understand. Could you please elaborate? Or could someone else elaborate? Thank You.

Why does the graph on the transaction timer page start at -8.3? Shouldn't it start at 0? Or is it so you can better see those transactions which took less than a minute?

It makes it easier to see. If you drag a box to zoom in, it adjusts automatically.

Very nice service and good looking website! Can you make it so that we can look at transactions from longer periods than 4 hours? Maybe 24? Very nice all around though

That's a thoughtful suggestion. I actually did have it set at 24 hours originally, but the number of transactions- and thus data points- that occur over a 24 hour period is extremely high and is too much for browsers to render. You'll notice that when zooming, it is already slow. Though if more people would like that much data, I could add a button to view the 24-hour chart. In the future, as Bitcoin becomes more popular, if browsers cannot handle all of the transactions [chart data points] that occur in a 4 hour period, I will need to lower this value further.

[acostanza]

Your site is Ballz! Nice job.

[fornit]

hm, why does it show ten times more nodes than http://bitcoinstatus.rowit.co.uk ?

[Atheros]

hm, why does it show ten times more nodes than http://bitcoinstatus.rowit.co.uk ?

I'm curious about that myself. I have double-checked that I am not counting IPs twice.

[d'aniel]

It would be nice to also have histograms for the 'with fee' and the 'without fee' transactions (plotted on the same chart) so you could easily compare their expected confirmation times, and see how much time the standard fee inclusion will buy you.  A chart tracking the difference between their means over time would also be nice for seeing how the miners' fee schedules evolve.

Thanks for the lovely charts!

[ThiagoCMC]

Awesome work!!

 But, at the "Versions" page, why you don't show "0.3.24" instead of "32400" at first place?
 So, we do not need a "caption" down the page...
 Congratulations!

Best,
Thiago

[Absentis]

I very much enjoy the website. Every bitcoin website I've visited usually has a donate address somewhere, and so when I decided that I wanted to send a little something your way I was surprised that I couldn't find a link anywhere, not even in your sig! How ironic is it that most forum members contribute nothign of value and ask for free btc, while you created this website and don't beg.

But seriously, can you put up a donate link so I can toss a few bits your way?

[Atheros]

A chart tracking the difference between their means over time would also be nice for seeing how the miners' fee schedules evolve.

Thanks for the lovely charts!

That is an excellent idea. It would be interesting to see in the future. If I add another chart, it will probably be this one.

Awesome work!!

 But, at the "Versions" page, why you don't show "0.3.24" instead of "32400" at first place?
 So, we do not need a "caption" down the page...
 Congratulations!

Best,
Thiago

Thank You ^_^
32400 is the format used by the Bitcoin network. If I was to substitute it out for 0.3.24 myself, the site would not be forward compatible and I would constantly be bugging people to know what the next version numbers would be like this guy: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=44330.msg529469#msg529469
Also, there are 'curious' version numbers like 31903 that give evidence of custom implementations. Which I find interesting.

I very much enjoy the website. Every bitcoin website I've visited usually has a donate address somewhere, and so when I decided that I wanted to send a little something your way I was surprised that I couldn't find a link anywhere, not even in your sig! How ironic is it that most forum members contribute nothign of value and ask for free btc, while you created this website and don't beg.

But seriously, can you put up a donate link so I can toss a few bits your way?

That is very gracious of you! Thank You 
1MqJCduQmqyyxhQ2sjs6dhDJd4o61jDK7k

[tvbcof]

Bump.

What happened in the Thursday 10/6 timeframe?  The charts make it look to me like a total system failure of the Bitcoin network.

[Atheros]

What happened in the Thursday 10/6 timeframe?  The charts make it look to me like a total system failure of the Bitcoin network.

Are you asking what is the 'count' like after Oct 4th? If so, I don't know yet- The program that counts unique nodes runs on Tuesdays.

[tvbcof]

What happened in the Thursday 10/6 timeframe?  The charts make it look to me like a total system failure of the Bitcoin network.

Are you asking what is the 'count' like after Oct 4th? If so, I don't know yet- The program that counts unique nodes runs on Tuesdays.

Oops.  =red-face=  I was thinking of this:

 http://bitcoinstatus.rowit.co.uk/hosts.html

I just went looking around for the announcement of that page (which had been in a browser tab of mine for a long time) and got the wrong announce mail.  Sorry about that.

[Atheros]

Oh ^_^

[sandos]

Isnt the tx size more important than the amount of BTC? Or maybe not.. I woulod like to see a graph of that, though. Tx size versus time to confirm.